Abstract
Ever-increasing global trade is one of the most important introduction pathways for plant pests. A diverse range of risk-reducing measures can be applied depending on the pest, the commodity and the import requirements. We used a review of over 1,800 risk reduction measures to extend a risk framework and menu of measures, previously developed for horticulture, to be applied to any commodity. We also reviewed how the efficacy of risk reduction measures is demonstrated, and assessed the maturity of the supporting science. We identified 39 unique risk reduction measures that were classified according to how they reduce risk. These were grouped under ten measure categories and four risk reduction objectives (minimising exposure to pest, minimising vulnerability of the commodity, reducing infestation rate and reducing establishment risk). These could then be applied against one or more consignment stages (production, post-production and post-border). Measures covered both commercial activities that reduce risk and may contribute to pest risk assessment, and regulated measures mandated to address unrestricted risk. Almost 90% of citations included measures that minimised exposure to pests or reduced infestation. Some measures were rarely reported, and some commodity classes had few measures associated with them, suggesting that available measures are being underutilised. Clear guidance was apparent for demonstrating efficacy of some measures (e.g., kill treatments), but lacking for many others. Compiling a ‘menu of risk reduction measures’ according to how they reduce risk, accompanied by clear guidelines for demonstrating efficacy, provides a robust basis for agreement between jurisdictions, and the further development, refinement and communication of efforts to both assess and manage the risk of global, trade-related pest movement. Agreement on how efficacy can be demonstrated for less utilised measures identified in this study will contribute to the further development of risk-based trade.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Global trade is a significant, ongoing cause of pest movement. Plant pests (including pathogens) are most often moved with their host (e.g., fruit, vegetables, cut flowers, timber, soil), or as contaminating pests (ISPM5, IPPC Secretariat 2017a) carried by a commodity or as stowaways associated with transport vectors such as wood packaging, container ships or machinery (Liebhold et al. 2006; Meurisse et al. 2019; Saccaggi et al. 2016; Turner et al. 2021). Hereafter, this broad range of traded articles will be termed commodities, which can include both hosts and carriers of pests. Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) is performed to identify pests and pathways of concern, determine the associated “unrestricted” risk of entry, establishment, spread and economic loss (pest risk assessment), and then identify pest risk management options to reduce the risk of introduction and spread (Devorshak 2012; EPPO 2011; ISPM11, IPPC Secretariat 2017d; EFSA PLH Panel et al. 2018; MacLeod and Baker 2003). PRA may consider features of production and the supply chain that reduce risk such as hygiene practices, quality grading and physical storage conditions. If the unrestricted risk is unacceptable then it can be designated as a regulated article with “phytosanitary measures” applied to manage that risk (Allen et al. 2017). To this end, a wide range of measures have been used or suggested to manage the risk of pest introduction or spread. Apart from a recent review of measures that were included in publicly available phytosanitary systems approaches (van Klinken et al. 2020), there have been few attempts to classify measures according to how they reduce risk. Further, international standards for demonstrating the efficacy of measures have focussed heavily on disinfestation treatments and have not yet been developed for some other widely used mitigation approaches (Follett and Neven 2006). Lack of harmonisation in trade regulation and standards can come at considerable cost to industry and regulators (Engler et al. 2012). A consistent classification, presented as a menu of possible measures (EFSA PLH Panel et al. 2018), together with guidance on how to demonstrate efficacy for each (Follett and Neven 2006; FAO 2016), would greatly assist in furthering the design, development and application of harmonised, risk-based trade as outlined under WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (World Trade Organization 1994).
Phytosanitary measures are defined within the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) as legislation, regulation or official procedures to prevent the introduction or spread of quarantine pests (ISPM5, IPPC Secretariat 2017a). The minimum requirements for a phytosanitary measure, at least when considered within a phytosanitary systems approach, are that they are: (i) clearly defined; (ii) efficacious; (iii) officially required (mandatory); and (iv) can be monitored and controlled by the responsible National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) (ISPM14, IPPC Secretariat 2017g). In this paper, we differentiate between “phytosanitary measures” and “commercial measures” which must be clearly defined and demonstrably reduce the risk of trade-related biosecurity threats (i.e., efficacious), but may not need to be officially mandated or monitored. In this sense, measures include characteristics, activities or processes that may already be features of the production system or supply chain and which contribute to risk reduction, intentionally or not. Where such measures are already standard production or supply chain practice they may be considered when undertaking a pest risk assessment. In some cases, these measures may be a commercial requirement for a commodity, for example through the establishment of industry-based production practices or buyer-driven private quality standards (Griffin 2012a). Phytosanitary measures applied to a regulated article therefore differ only by being officially required, formally notified, monitored and controlled by a relevant government agency or delegated authority. Whether a risk-reducing production practice requires this additional regulatory oversight may depend on its importance, and the level of confidence that it is already being consistently applied across the industry. For example, if production only occurs in areas where pest abundance is demonstrably low, then that aspect of production may be considered during the pest risk assessment, otherwise a phytosanitary measure may be required to limit trade to a commodity sourced from those areas.
A wide range of measures contribute, or are used, to manage biosecurity risks, and others have been suggested. These can be applied anywhere across the production system and supply chain. Lists of potential options are frequently provided (ISPM14 and IPPC Secretariat 2017g; EFSA PLH Panel et al. 2018; USDA 2002). However, measures are typically grouped according to when they are applied (e.g., pre-harvest or post-harvest, or the specific control point), with little explicit consideration given to how they reduce risk. Understanding how measures reduce risk is important when it comes to identifying which combination of measures are needed to address unrestricted risk, and to quantify that effect (van Klinken et al. 2021). For some measures the evidence required to demonstrate efficacy is well established, for example to demonstrate the efficacy of widely used kill treatments such as fumigation and cold treatment (Heather and Hallman 2008). In contrast, utilisation of other measures may be limited by an apparent lack of guidance and agreement on how efficacy should be established (Follett and Neven 2006; Jang 2016; van Klinken et al. 2021; van Klinken et al. 2020).
A recent analysis of phytosanitary systems approaches classified the measures used according to how they reduce risk (van Klinken et al. 2020). It found that measures can reduce risk in one of four ways, by: (i) minimising exposure to the pest; (ii) minimising host vulnerability; (iii) reducing infestation rate; and (iv) minimising establishment risk. Measures were further classified under each of these four risk-reduction objectives. However, this study was restricted to existing phytosanitary measures used in publicly available systems approach protocols developed for trade in horticultural produce, and did not look at what evidence would be required to assess their efficacy.
Here we develop a comprehensive “menu of measures” that classifies measures according to how they reduce risk. We then assess how efficacy can be established for each of the measures and the maturity of the supporting science. The menu of measures is intended to support both pest risk assessment and pest risk management, or together in a PRA. We therefore did not distinguish between measures that are mandated by the NPPO (phytosanitary measures), are a commercial requirement (commercial measures), or existing features of the production or supply chain system that contribute to risk-reduction. Existing and potential measures relating to trade in any commodity or carrier relevant to the movement of plant pests were identified through a literature review. These measures were then classified according to how they reduce risk using the classification of van Klinken et al. (2020) as a starting point. Potentially underutilised measures were identified through an assessment of how often they were cited in the literature, and for what commodities they were being suggested. Literature relevant to demonstrating efficacy was then reviewed for each category of measure to identify where further effort may be required to establish agreed standards. We finish with a discussion on how the risk framework and “menu of measures” can be applied more broadly within a PRA to both help estimate unrestricted risk through pest risk assessment and determine how identified risks can best be managed.
Methods
Sourcing measures
Internet searches were conducted to locate any literature (journal papers, books, public reports, ISPMs) and publicly available protocols that discussed or listed measures relevant to the trade in commodities. We used commodity classes listed in ISPM 5 (IPPC Secretariat 2017a) as a starting point. Internet searches were conducted using a combination of keyword searches, including words such as “phytosanitary”, “phytosanitary measures”, “risk management”, “biosecurity”, “quarantine measures”, along with the various commodity classes (e.g., seeds, plant in vitro and cut flowers). References cited in other key documents were also reviewed, as a form of snowball sampling to collect key documents. Webpages from key governments (e.g., USA) and organisation (e.g., Plant Protection Organisations) were also searched. The aim of the review was to identify the diversity of measures proposed or used to manage trade-related risks of plant pests. We therefore did not attempt to comprehensively source and review existing protocols where they were expected to rely on similar risk-reducing measures (such as single point treatments) or measures that were already captured in reviews. For measures to be included in the analysis it needed to be clear as to how they reduce risk. For each measure we recorded the citation, commodity class that it related to, where in the production system it is to be applied, and relevant descriptive details.
Assigning measures within the risk framework
Each identified measure was assigned to a measure category within a risk reduction objective, and the consignment stage to which it applies. These measures were initially classified into measure categories under each of four risk reduction objectives according to the risk framework van Klinken et al. (2020). Measure categories further classifies measures according to how they reduce risk under each risk reduction objective. How measures were defined and classified was then refined to accommodate the diversity of measures and commodities identified through the review. If the cited measure could reduce risk in multiple ways, then they were entered for each.
Analysis of reviewed measures
Once cited measures were classified against our risk framework then results were summarised by literature source to give an indication of their prevalence in the biosecurity literature and by commodity class. In each case the number of measure types and times measures were cited under each risk reduction objective was calculated. Commodity classes were adapted from ISPM 5 (IPPC Secretariat 2017a). For each commodity class the consignment stage at which infestation risk is greatest was also identified, the total number of references that identified measures were counted for each commodity class, and the key literature listed.
Evidence of efficacy
Literature was reviewed to determine what is broadly required to establish efficacy for each measure category, and to assess how well developed and agreed the supporting methodologies were. Level of development was qualitatively assessed as being high (supported by internationally agreed guidelines, or exemplar studies), moderate (some supporting studies on relevant aspects), low (only tangential studies) or variable (between measures within a measure category). Where there was limited information in the market access and biosecurity literature the review was extended to relevant literature in ecology, plant-insect and plant-pathogen interactions and pest management.
Results
Overview of measures found and the updated risk framework and menu of measures
Over 1,800 measures were reported in the surveyed literature. We classified an additional 179 activities as “administration and oversight” rather than measures. These included audit requirements, compliance inspections, registration, phytosanitary certification, provision of work plan, traceability (tracking/tracing) and record keeping.
We identified a total of 39 types of measures when classifying the reviewed measures according to how they reduce risk (Fig. 1). Some modifications to the measures and measure categories outlined in van Klinken et al. 2020 were required to allow the risk framework to be extended beyond horticulture, and to accommodate measures that were not identified in that study. The most significant changes are explained below.
Consignment stages against which measures can be applied
Consignments are traded articles covered (when required) by a single phytosanitary certificate (IPPC Secretariat 2017a). Here we use the term in a restricted sense to refer to a single commodity from a common origin. Measures to manage the risk of pest introduction and spread can therefore be applied to a consignment during production and throughout the supply chain. The three stages proposed by van Klinken et al. (2020) for where measures could be applied to manage risk in fruit (pre-harvest, from harvest and post-certification) needed modification to extend to commodities such as growing media and machinery. Furthermore, the point in the supply chain at which phytosanitary certification is conducted varies. We therefore altered the stages at which measures can reduce risk to the following three consignment stages:
-
Production, which includes production of fresh produce (“pre-harvest”), nursery products and in vitro plants prior to being moved from the growing area, turf prior to being dug up, wood prior to trees being felled, and the manufacturing of growing media and wood packaging (when considered as a commodity class).
-
Post-production, which includes any storage, transport, handling and treatment from the point of harvest or manufacture through to departure from the regulated jurisdiction (country in the case of international trade).
-
Post-border, which includes any storage, transport, handling, treatment and processing following departure from the regulated jurisdiction. This can include transit to the importing jurisdiction.
Here production and post-production relates to the regulated commodity. Therefore, the production stage for wood (timber) is pre-harvest (even though some processing may occur subsequently), but for wood packaging the production stage is when it is constructed.
The commodity can only become infested pre-border, so managing the risk of the commodity becoming infested by minimising exposure to the pest and vulnerability of the commodity only applies to production and post-production stages (Fig. 1). In contrast, establishment risks are reduced post-border, even though some measures such as consignment and packaging size may be instigated pre-border. Measures that reduce infestation rates in the consignment can be applied at any of the three consignment stages.
Description of measure categories
Categories of measures under each of the four risk reduction objectives are described in Table 1. Measure categories largely agree with those outlined in van Klinken et al. (2020). Pest freedom and low pest prevalence at site and area-wide scales were combined under a single measure category, as they reduce risk in a similar way. A broader range of measures that reduce establishment risk were identified under the current review, and this resulted in the original measure category “poor destination habitat” being subsumed under “limit export destinations or use”, and the addition of a second measure category, “limit propagule pressure”.
Risk objective: minimise exposure to pests when the commodity is vulnerable
A diverse range of measures that minimise exposure of the commodity to pests were identified (Fig. 1). All can be applied at the production stage and many can also be applied post-production, for example to prevent infestation by secondary or contaminating pests.
Measures that give confidence that the commodity is being produced or handled in areas that are either pest-free or have low pest prevalence could be applied either regionally (e.g., pest free area or area of low pest prevalence) or just to the registered site. Here registered site refers to production or post-production businesses that are registered for trade, which can include pest free production sites or pest free places of production. Threshold exceedance has consequences for all producers if applied regionally whereas it may only affect individual producers if applied at the registered site scale. The scale of application also has implications for how monitoring is designed, how corrective action and suspension thresholds are set and what corrective actions may be required.
A wide range of pest management options can be used singly or in combination to minimise exposure risks to pest populations when susceptible hosts or carriers are present. Measure options were expanded from those published in van Klinken et al. (2020) for fruit. Calendar and risk-based spraying were grouped into agrochemicals to reflect the wide range of ways chemicals can be applied. It is also consistent with the terminology used under measures for reducing infestation rates, reflecting the dual role agrochemicals can have in reducing risks. Field hygiene was expanded to hygiene as hygiene can be applied both during production and post-production to help manage pest populations. Hygiene referred to the management of alternative hosts, and removal of potential hosts, sources of inoculum or carriers (such as unharvested produce and dead leaves). It was distinguished from sanitation which we used to describe cleaning, washing or disinfecting equipment and facilities to manage pest abundance and transference risks, which is a common practice across the supply chain. Attract and kill was added to capture a range of techniques such as bait sprays, mass-trapping, sticky traps and pheromone lures, noting that these can also include agrochemicals to provide the kill function.
Pest avoidance is achieved by partially or completely preventing the overlap of a vulnerable commodity with pests in space and time. Measures proposed by van Klinken et al. (2020) remained unchanged: ensuring the commodity is produced or handled in areas where pest prevalence is limited by poor habitat or limited seasonal overlap, or by limiting exposure time. Additional measures identified through the review were limiting production or handling to areas away from identified “hot spots” such as towns (isolation from hot spots), and habitat manipulation to make it less suitable for the pest (e.g., through controlling lighting, temperature and humidity).
Partial or complete pest exclusion can be achieved at different scales. Protected units applies to, for example, fruit bagging or wrapping of machinery. Safeguarding was used to refer to pest physical pest exclusion (with associated management practices) when applied between the scale of individual units and protected facilities. It most often related to storage of produce, secure transport and secure packaging. Commodities can also be safeguarded from infestation as it passes through the supply chain by ensuring secure conditions during transportation or within non-secure facilities. This is a more restricted usage of the safeguarding term than that of Griffin (2012a) which included non-physical measures such as “shipping season asynchrony”. Protected facilities includes protected cropping, and secure processing, treatment and storage facilities. Segregation can be used to ensure a regulated article does not mix in space or time with unregulated commodities or other potential pest sources. Typically, these pest exclusion measures combine physical infrastructure with management practices, e.g., to maintain the integrity of processing facilities. New measures, maintaining buffer zones and pest free inputs, generally relate to management activities that contribute to pest exclusion or to the maintenance of pest free areas.
Risk objective: minimise vulnerability of the commodity to infestation
Measures can minimise the vulnerability of the traded commodity, and therefore infestation risk, at relevant pest abundances. This can be achieved by limiting trade to commodities (poor host or carrier status), or to stages (poor developmental stage) or quality (quality specifications) of commodities, that are poor hosts or carriers. Quality grading was renamed to quality specifications and moved from reducing infestation rates as it reduces risk by setting requirements on the quality of commodity that can be traded. A new measure, modifying vulnerability, was added for situations where the physical or chemical properties of the commodity is altered to make it less vulnerable. For example, kiln drying timber may make it less susceptible to insect attack (ISPM31, IPPC Secretariat 2016b). Removing or prohibiting parts of the host or carrier that are most vulnerable to infestation (e.g., removing bark from timber and bare-rooting plants; Leal (2010)) was also added.
Risk objective: reduce infestation rates
Reducing infestation rates (assuming that there was a risk of infestation) can be achieved at the consignment level by measures that reduce pests in the consignment, remove infested commodity units, or at the pathway level by measures that prevent the movement of infested consignments if infested commodity is found through inspection (remove infested consignment, previously referred to as “Inspect and reject”). Many of these measures can be applied at multiple consignment stages. Measures previously identified for horticulture (van Klinken et al. 2020) remained largely unchanged. Kill treatments were pooled, reflecting the diverse range of chemical and physical options that are possible across different commodities. Physical disturbance and processing was added as a distinct measure as it often relates to production processes (e.g., processing can be added as a post-border requirement), although physical disturbance can also be a specified kill treatment. Measures for removing the pest from the commodity was expanded from surface cleaning to include removing contaminants. Removal of infested commodity units can be achieved through symptom grading or risk-profiling. The latter is a new measure where risk traits rather than pest symptoms are used to identify units (e.g., shipping containers) that are most likely to be infested, and where the consequence of detection is removal of the unit rather than the “consignment”. Measures that Remove infested consignments can be applied during production (e.g., crop inspection) through to post-border. A Quarantine and reject measure was included as it is commonly used for living plants, with quarantining being used to improve the detection likelihood of cryptic pests such as plant diseases (USDA 2002).
Risk objective: reduce establishment risks
If a pest enters or introduces are jurisdiction with a commodity then PRA is concerned with the likelihood of establishment, spread and economic loss (Devorshak 2012). Risk management measures that we found primarily relate to reducing establishment risks. The only such measure identified in the review of systems approach protocols was ensuring that consignments were imported to poor habitat (van Klinken et al. 2020). Our review identified a much broader range of measures which we grouped according to whether they reduce establishment risk through limiting propagule pressure or by limiting export destinations or use (Fig. 1).
Measures that limit propagule pressure minimise the likelihood that sufficient pests will escape from consignments, often enough, for establishment to occur. Restricting trade volume limits the number of pests that could be released through time, whereas limiting consignment size (or how the commodity is packed within the consignment) can limit the number of pests that may be released at any one time or place. These restrictions and limits contribute to reducing the number of individuals that could arrive simultaneously, meaning that stochastic population processes and Allee effects are more likely to prevent establishment (Drake and Lodge 2006; Leung et al. 2012). Measures to prevent pests escaping from the consignment are similar to pest exclusion measures, but are focussed on inclusion rather than exclusion. We only included it as a distinct measure when it was associated with other requirements such as transport to post-border processing or treatment facilities.
Export destinations and use can be limited spatially (restricted to poor habitat) or seasonally (poor time of year) to areas where establishment risks are expected to be low, as determined by environmental conditions, host availability and other factors. Pests on commodities that cross hemispheres are frequently exposed to counter-seasonal conditions that may reduce the risk of establishment (Eschen et al. 2015a). End-use can also be restricted (e.g., wood chips for biofuel only, ISPM41, IPPC Secretariat (2019e)) at the destination to limit establishment likelihood. This was differentiated from post-border processing requirements that were included under measures that reduce infestation rates.
Inconsistencies in published measures, and how they were resolved
Some published measures were what we refer to as “measure elements”, where the action on its own is insufficient to reduce risk. For example, “surveillance”, “sampling”, “testing” and “monitoring” would reduce risk only if a threshold is set, and a consequence of threshold exceedance is defined (Table 1). Where sufficient context was provided we assigned these to measures, such as inspect product and reject, pest freedom or low pest prevalence or integrated pest and disease management (n = 76). For a small number of the measures cited in the literature (n = 35; < 2%), insufficient information was provided to assign them to a risk reduction objective, measure category or measure type. This was generally because it was difficult to interpret how the suggested measure would reduce risk without additional context. For example, “harvest technique and handling” (ISPM13, IPPC Secretariat 2021a) or “silviculture practices” (ISPM41, IPPC Secretariat 2019e). The European Food Safety Authority listed eight “supporting measures”, defined as measures that do not directly affect pest abundance (EFSA PLH Panel et al. 2018) which we classified as either administrative (e.g., certification) or measure elements (e.g., surveillance, testing and laboratory testing).
Evidence of efficacy
We found an extensive literature on how efficacy of measures can be established. This included internationally agreed “guidelines”, reviews and focussed studies. However, the strength of the literature was variable, depending on the category of measures (Table 1). Requirements for demonstrating efficacy were best established for measures that kill, inactivate or remove pests from the commodity, reflecting the widespread use of “end point treatments” (ISPM28, IPPC Secretariat 2021c).
Minimise exposure to pests
Measures that reduce exposure of commodities to pests are diverse and are often used in combination. There is a rich literature on providing confidence in pest free areas or area-wide low pest prevalence, however, this typically does not extend to providing confidence in situations where monitoring is restricted to the registered site (Cohen and Yuval 2000; Grechi et al. 2021). Methods to support the establishment of pest abundance thresholds are also not well supported. There is an extensive literature on pest management, including detailed reviews, modelling and empirical studies (Dent and Binks 2020). However, this literature almost exclusively focusses on minimising production losses or maintaining quality standards through, for example, the maintenance of economic injury levels (Dent and Binks 2020; Peterson et al. 2018). Establishing the relationship between pest management and the risk of pest movement through trade is a related question, but typically requires stringent maintenance of much lower pest thresholds. We found no standard approaches for this, although empirical studies have quantified the relationship between the efficacy of pest management and pest densities for some quarantine pests (Cohen and Yuval 2000; Sauphanor et al. 2012). Bioclimatic modelling and empirical studies can be used to support pest avoidance measures, such as demonstrating that production occurs in poor pest habitat (Neven et al. 2018) and demonstrating limited seasonal overlap (Araujo et al. 2019; Hammons et al. 2010). Studies on pest exclusion measures are limited, although there are well-established standards for secure packaging (safeguarding).
Minimise vulnerability of commodity to infestation
International standards have been developed to establish host status for some pests. For example, methodologies have been developed for fruit flies to assess whether a commodity is a natural host, conditional host (can only support the pest in semi-natural conditions) or non-host (ISPM37, IPPC Secretariat 2018a). Relative host vulnerability has also been established using often high pest abundance under laboratory or semi-natural conditions (e.g., Bellamy et al. (2013); Follett et al. (2021)). However, development status or quality is rarely explicitly considered when assessing relative vulnerability of a host or a carrier, though it can have a significant effect (Tonina et al. 2020). Physiological status of the pest, as influenced by environmental conditions, time of year, developmental host, and the availability of alternative hosts, can also have a significant effect on infestation rates (Merkel et al. 2019; Papadopoulos et al. 2001). These factors all contribute to making it difficult to relate relative host or carrier vulnerability assessments generated under artificial conditions to what might happen under environmental conditions and the typically low pest abundance encountered under commercial settings. We found no examples where methods have been developed or applied to take these considerations into account, although theory and methodologies could potentially be drawn from other disciplines such as weed biological control (Sheppard et al. 2005).
Reducing infestation rates
Considerable effort has gone into developing internationally agreed methodologies for many of the typical end point treatments such as cold, fumigation and irradiation (ISPM28, IPPC Secretariat 2021c). In contrast, we found limited literature demonstrating the efficacy of symptom grading or risk-profiling (Bragard et al. 2021; Xia et al. 2021). Inspection and rejection measures are almost universally required, and calculation of their efficacy is described in ISPM31, (IPPC Secretariat 2016b). Yamamura and Katsumata (1999) developed a framework that incorporates biological attributes of the pest in combination with disinfestation treatments and export sampling protocols to examine the probability of introduction. However, we found few examples where key parameters such as the probability that inspection of an infested unit will detect a pest (Gould 1995; Xia et al. 2021). Most studies have focussed on post-production inspections. We found no examples where the supporting science has been extended to quantify inspection sensitivity conducted during production (e.g., crop inspections) or to sampling of high-risk fractions (e.g., discarded produce that are more likely to be infested).
Establishment risk
Measures identified in this study that reduce establishment risk are not widely used (Fig. 1). Nonetheless, there is a large ecological (Drake and Lodge 2006; Liebhold et al. 2016) and biosecurity (Bartell and Nair 2004; Jamieson et al. 2021; Ormsby 2022; Turner et al. 2020) literature on methods to estimate establishment risk. These can inform pest risk assessments (ISPM 11, IPPC Secretariat 2017d; MacLeod and Baker 2003), and support the development of measures that reduce establishment risks. Establishment risk is determined by propagule pressure (number and timing of escaping pests), suitability of the destination for establishment, and the biology and physiological status of the pest (e.g., life stage, reproductive rates, reproductive mode, Allee effects, stochasticity and ability to survive adverse conditions) (Bartell and Nair 2004; Saccaggi et al. 2016). The suitability of habitat, or the invasibility of the recipient ecosystem, can be driven by both abiotic and biological factors, and there is a wide range of methods for predicting habitat suitability (e.g., Camac et al. 2020; Neven et al. 2018). The physiological status of the pest on arrival is less often considered, but can have a significant effect on establishment risk, for example where the commodity crosses hemispheres (Eschen et al. 2015a). The Maximum Pest Limits (MPL) concept (Baker et al. 1990) reflects the maximum number of pest individuals permissible in consignments during a specified time and to a specified location (Baker et al. 1990; Jamieson et al. 2013). MPL is therefore related to propagule pressure and varies considerably between pests (Baker et al. 1990; Ormsby 2022). Several studies have extended and applied the MPL methodologies to different pests and commodities (e.g., Cannon 1998; Mangan et al. 1997; Vail et al. 1993), most recently to pests of wood packaging (Ormsby 2022), however a more comprehensive methodology for assessing the efficacy of specific measures aimed at reducing establishment risk (Fig. 1) is lacking.
Usage of measures in the literature
Of the 39 measure types we identified, the most commonly encountered ones were kill treatments, inspect product and reject, pest freedom or low pest prevalence at the registered site level and safeguarding (Fig. 1). Some measures such as removal of infested commodity units through risk profiling, and trade volumes and consignment and packaging size to limit propagule pressure, were rarely encountered.
Several literature sources identified most measure types (Table 2). ISPMs together were the most comprehensive, but did not include the three measures reducing establishment risk by limiting propagule pressure (trade volume, consignment and packaging size, and prevent escapes), quality specifications (minimise vulnerability) and risk profiling (remove infested commodity units). Only nine measures were not already being used in publicly available systems approach protocols for horticultural products, as listed in van Klinken et al. (2020). Similarly, 30 of the 39 measures were included in a report on managing plant pathogen trade risks (USDA 2002). “Risk Reduction Options that embrace all types of phytosanitary measures that could be implemented for acting on a pest injurious to plants” listed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA PLH Panel et al. 2018) only identified 22 measures (Table 1).
Cited measures were mostly directed at minimising exposure to pests (49.6%) and reducing infestation rates (39.9%) (Table 2). Measures to minimise host or carrier vulnerability and reduce establishment risks were included in most of the main publications, although they were infrequently mentioned.
Usage of measures by commodity class
A diverse range of commodity classes can carry biosecurity threats (Table 3). Most can both be hosts and carriers of pests whereas vehicles, machinery and equipment (VME) and shipping are exclusively carriers. Commodity classes differ as to where in the supply chain infestation risk is greatest (Table 3). For living plants or plant products it is mostly during the production phase, although some pests are capable of infesting those products after harvest, are post-harvest specialists (e.g., many grain pests) or can be contaminants. For already manufactured products such as VME, wood packaging and some types of planting media, infestation risk will mainly or exclusively be post-production.
The number of references we found listing measures varied with commodity class, as did the number of measure types and the total number of times measures were cited (Table 3). Horticultural products have received the most focussed attention as judged by the number of times measures were cited, followed by plants for planting, and wood and wood products. This result likely reflects at least in part the state of the literature, with few citations found that review how trade-related biosecurity risks are managed for many of the commodity classes (Table 3).
Thirty-five of the 39 measures have been used or proposed for fruit and vegetables (Table 3). Missing were two measures for reducing infestation rates, risk profiling and quarantine and reject, and two of the six measures for reducing establishment risk, trade volume and consignment and packaging size. In fact, measures to reduce establishment risks were rare or absent for most commodity classes. Overall, eight of the 14 commodity classes listed less than half of the of the 39 measures. The kill treatment measure was identified for 13 of the 14 commodity classes, only being missed for plants in vitro. Other widely applied measures were safeguarding (12), inspect product and reject (11), pest-free inputs (10), area-wide sites that are pest free or low pest prevalence (9), protected facilities (9), and hygiene (8).
Discussion
In this paper we revise the previously published risk framework and menu of measures developed for horticulture (van Klinken et al. 2020) with the aim of making it applicable to all commodities, and to both pest risk assessment and pest risk management. We reviewed how measures have been used or suggested for use across relevant commodity classes, and what is required to demonstrate efficacy in reducing risk. The previously published risk framework, which outlined four risk reduction objectives and three production stages (van Klinken et al. 2020), required updating to be relevant to all commodities, and to incorporate additional measures. The main change to the risk framework was to adjust the terms applied to the three consignment stages to be relevant to any commodity class. The two pre-border stages, production and post-production, reflect very different infestation risk profiles within and between commodity classes. For example, the greatest infestation risks for fresh produce are typically during production (pre-harvest), whilst the post-production stage is most relevant for manufactured commodity classes such as VME (vehicles, machinery and equipment) and wood packaging, conveyances and shipping containers. It can also be most important for stored grain. The post-border stage is when the commodity can no longer become infested and when measures that reduce establishment risk in the event that infested commodities were to arrive take effect. Measures to reduce infestation rate can still be applied post-border. Measures were used in similar ways across commodity classes, but some appeared underutilised. This, combined with our observation that guidance was lacking on how to demonstrate efficacy of many measure categories, suggests that there is considerable opportunity for innovation in how risks are managed.
Harmonisation of risk terminology assists in communication, and the ease and usefulness of risk analyses (EFSA PLH Panel et al. 2018). By classifying on how they reduce risk we identified 39 unique measures, grouped under ten categories and four risk reduction objectives. This greatly simplifies the diversity of measures described in the literature, and extends the options provided in existing lists. Most of the 39 measures reduced risk by minimising exposure to pests (20 measures under four measure categories) or reducing infestation rates (8 measures under 3 measure categories). These measures were also the most widely encountered overall, and were well represented across the diverse commodity classes. Minimising exposure to pests is widely recognised as being an important contributor to managing biosecurity risk or as a stand-alone requirement (e.g., pest free areas), whereas measures that reduce infestation risk are commonly used as single point treatments. Measures to minimise vulnerability of the commodity were only applicable to commodities for which there is variability in vulnerability, for example with age, stage of development or quality condition, or where vulnerability can be modified. Measures that reduce establishment risk should infested consignments happen to arrive onshore were poorly represented across all commodities, although options that either limit commodity destination or use, or limit propagule pressure, were identified. Lack of attention for measures aimed at reducing establishment risk may reflect a focus by regulators on infestation risks rather than establishment likelihoods (Baker et al. 1990; Jamieson et al. 2013), despite establishment likelihood and potential impact being an explicit focus of pest risk assessments (ISPM11, IPPC Secretariat 2017d; Jamieson et al. 2021).
The risk framework and menu of measures provides options for designing and revising protocols so that they meet the requirement of being effective, whilst remaining least trade restrictive (World Trade Organization 1994). Often only a single measure is required for trade: pest free areas rely on monitoring with suspension of all participating registered sites if a detection threshold is exceeded; conditional non-host protocols rely on poor host or carrier status or poor developmental stage; single point treatments or a single kill treatment (IAEA 2011); and some protocols rely on only permitting distribution of the commodity into areas where establishment risks are low. Nonetheless, additional supporting measures may also be required. For example, pest freedom protocols may also require pest management measures (e.g., hygiene), pest avoidance measures (e.g., if pest free areas can only be applied in areas isolated from incursions) and pest exclusion methods (such as maintaining buffer zones and ensuring pest free inputs) (ISPM4, 26, IPPC Secretariat 2017f, 2018b). These measures all address a single risk reduction objective and as such can be considered “dependent” (IAEA 2011). In contrast, phytosanitary systems approaches combine measures from multiple risk reduction objectives (van Klinken et al. 2020). For example, a kill treatment may also require measures to minimise exposure to the pest (IAEA 2011). The menu of measures allows potential measures to be identified, and decisions made regarding which combination will provide an Appropriate Level of Protection (ALOP) (Griffin and Neely 2012) whilst also being least trade restrictive. It can also help identify commercial measures that are already contributing to risk reduction, and guide decisions as to which measures need to be regulated.
A critical element of risk-based trade is providing evidence that measures are effective in reducing risk (Devorshak 2012; FAO 2016; Follett and Neven 2006). We found considerable variation within and across categories of measures in the level of guidance and agreement as to what is required to demonstrate efficacy. Methodologies were most established for demonstrating pest freedom, killing pests in commodities, and removing pests from the commodity. More work is needed to provide guidance for many of the other measures. For example, although principles have been developed to demonstrate area-wide pest freedom (Lloyd et al. 2010; Vreysen et al. 2007), little has been done on how to establish corrective action or suspension thresholds to support low pest prevalence measures, re-instate pest free areas following an incursion (but see Ormsby 2021 for a recent approach for fruit flies), or design site-based monitoring (Guimapi et al. 2020). A substantial literature relates pest management activities to managing production losses, but we found little guidance on how to directly quantify the contribution of pest management to reducing the risk of pest movement through trade. Application of quality specifications through quality grading is commonly recognised as being an important commercial practice that reduces biosecurity risks of fruit (Hattingh et al. 2020), but we found few studies quantifying its benefits. This may contribute to quality specifications rarely being explicitly included in trade protocols. The Maximum Pest Limit concept (Baker et al. 1990; Yamamura and Katsumata 1999; Ormsby 2022), provides a mechanism for quantifying the efficacy of measures that reduce establishment risk. However, actual quantification of measures that can reduce establishment risk, such as limiting trade volume, consignment and packaging size and export destinations or use, has received little attention.
The vulnerability of hosts or carriers to becoming infested is a key aspect to establishing risk (e.g., Vail et al. 1993). It also underpins measures that relate to limiting protocols to less vulnerable types, developmental stages or quality specifications of commodity. However, we found methodologies for demonstrating the efficacy of such measures to be poorly developed, beyond simply supporting conditional non-host claims (ISPM37, IPPC Secretariat 2018a). A recent attempt at developing a standard Host Suitability Index (HSI) for fruit flies (Follett et al. 2021) is a step, but it does not explicitly consider the relationship between host quality and host vulnerability, or pest abundance and infestation rate, two important aspects affecting infestation rate and the efficacy of measures aimed at addressing risk of infestation. There has, nonetheless, been considerable basic research on host-pest/pathogen relationships, as well as applied research in biological control for example (Sheppard et al. 2005) which could inform the development of a more robust methodology.
Conclusion
Globalisation and trade pose substantial biosecurity risks. A key challenge for biosecurity practitioners and policy makers is to apply risk-based principles to identify where and when risks need to be managed, and to ensure that the strength of any required measures are proportional to risk (Griffin and Neely 2012). Here we have generated a menu of measures, with measures classified according to how they reduce risk. This expands on an earlier version through review and analysis, making it applicable to a much broader range of plant pests and commodity classes. Variation in the extent to which measures are used within and across different commodity classes suggests there is considerable potential for innovation in terms of which measures are applied and in what combination. However, many measures are still lacking clear guidelines on how to demonstrate efficacy. Classification of measures according to how they reduce risk, and further work to provide clear guidelines on how efficacy of each type of measure can be demonstrated, will provide a robust basis for the continued development, refinement and communication of efforts to both assess and manage the risk of global, trade-related pest movement.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Allen E, Noseworthy M, Ormsby M (2017) Phytosanitary measures to reduce the movement of forest pests with the international trade of wood products. Biol Invasions 19:3365–3376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1515-0
Araujo ES, Paiva LR, Alves SG et al (2019) Phenological asynchrony between the fruit fly Anastrepha fraterculus and early maturing peach cultivars could contribute to pesticide use reduction. Span J Agricultural Res 17:e1001. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2019171-13294
Australian Government (2019a) Final pest risk analysis for brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys). Department of agriculture, Canberra, Australia, p 122
Australian Government (2019b) Final pest risk analysis for cut flower and foliage imports - part 1. Department of agriculture, Canberra, Australia
Australian Government (2021a) Coir peat. BICON. Department of agriculture, water and the environment (DAWE), Canberra, Australia
Australian Government (2021b) Draft report for the review of biosecurity import requirements for fresh persian lime fruit from Mexico. Department of agriculture, water and the environment (DAWE), Canberra, Australia
Australian Government (2021c) Guidelines for airline and aircraft operators arriving in australian territory. Department of agriculture, water and the environment, Canberra, Australia, pp 1–15
Australian Government (2022a) Machinery and equipment. BICON. Department of agriculture, water and the environment (DAWE), Canberra, Australia
Australian Government (2022b) Non-Commodity cargo clearance. BICON. Department of agriculture, water and the environment (DAWE), Canberra, Australia
Australian Government (2022c) Processed tuber and corm products for human consumption. BICON. Department of agriculture, water and the environment (DAWE), Canberra, Australia
Australian Government (2022d) Seed for sowing products. BICON. Department of agriculture, water and the environment (DAWE), Canberra, Australia
Baker RHA, Battisti A, Bremmer J et al (2009) PRATIQUE: a research project to enhance pest risk analysis techniques in the European Union. Bull OEPP 39:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2009.02246.x
Baker RT, Cowley JM, Harte DS et al (1990) Development of a maximum pest limit for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in produce imported into New Zealand. J Econ Entomol 83:13–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/83.1.13
Balagawi S, Archer J, Cruickshank D et al (2021) Cold treatment: an effective post-harvest disinfestation treatment for Bactrocera tryoni (Diptera: Tephritidae) in ‘gold3’ kiwifruit. Austral Entomol 60:621–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/aen.12561
Bartell SM, Nair SK (2004) Establishment risks for invasive species. Risk Anal 24:833–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00482.x
Bellamy DE, Sisterson MS, Walse SS (2013) Quantifying host potentials: indexing postharvest fresh fruits for spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii. PLoS ONE 8:e61227–e61227. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061227
Bragard C, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Di Serio F et al (2021) Commodity risk assessment of Citrus L. fruits from Israel for Thaumatotibia leucotreta under a systems approach. EFSA J 19:e06427. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6427
Camac J, Baumgartner J, Robinson A et al (2020) Developing pragmatic maps of establishment likelihood for plant pests. Technical Report for CEBRA project 170607. pp 325
Cannon RM (1998) Sampling to comply with a maximum pest limit. Biometrics 54:847–858. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533839
Chouinard G, Firlej A, Cormier D (2016) Going beyond sprays and killing agents: Exclusion, sterilization and disruption for insect pest control in pome and stone fruit orchards. Sci Hort 208:13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.03.014
Clarke AR (2019) Biology and management of Bactrocera and related fruit flies. CABI, Wallingford, UK
Clarke M (2004) Phytosanitary measures: preventing the introduction of exotic pests and pathogens occurring from the global trade of wood products. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute:1–11
Cohen H, Yuval B (2000) Perimeter trapping strategy to reduce mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) damage on different host species in Israel. J Econ Entomol 93:721–725. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-93.3.721
Dent DR, Binks RH (2020) Insect pest management. CAB International, Boston, MA
Devorshak C (2012) Plant pest risk analysis: concepts and applications. CABI
Dominiak BC (2019) Components of a systems approach for the management of Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) in a post dimethoate fenthion era. Crop Prot 116:56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2018.10.002
Drake JM, Lodge DM (2006) Allee Effects, Propagule pressure and the probability of establishment: risk analysis for Biological Invasions. Biol Invasions 8:365–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-004-8122-6
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger M, Bragard C et al (2018) Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment. EFSA Journal 2018; 16(8): 05350, 86 pp https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5350
Engler A, Nahuelhual L, Cofré G et al (2012) How far from harmonization are sanitary, phytosanitary and quality-related standards? An exporter’s perception approach. Food Policy 37:162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.12.003
EPPO (2011) Gudelines on pest risk analysis: decision support scheme for quarantine pests. eurpoean and mediterranean plant protection organization Europe, Paris
Eschen R, Britton K, Brockerhoff E et al (2015a) International variation in phytosanitary legislation and regulations governing importation of plants for planting. Environ Sci Policy 51:228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.021
Eschen R, Rigaux L, Sukovata L et al (2015b) Phytosanitary inspection of woody plants for planting at European Union entry points: a practical enquiry. Biol Invasions 17:2403–2413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0883-6
FAO (2016) Equivalence: a review of the application of equivalence between phytosanitary measures used to manage pest risk in trade. Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS)
Follett PA, Haynes FEM, Dominiak BC (2021) Host suitability index for polyphagous tephritid fruit flies. J Econ Entomol 114:1021–1034. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toab035
Follett PA, Neven LG (2006) Current trends in quarantine entomology. Ann Rev Entomol 51:359–385
Gould WP (1995) Probability of detecting Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) infestations by fruit dissection. Fla Entomol 78:502–507. https://doi.org/10.2307/3495535
Government of Canada (2014) RMD-13-08: Pest risk management document - Hymenoscyphus fraxineus (ash dieback pathogen). Government of Canada, Canada
Grechi I, Preterre A-L, Caillat A et al (2021) Linking mango infestation by fruit flies to fruit maturity and fly pressure: a prerequisite to improve fruit fly damage management via harvest timing optimization. Crop Prot 146:105663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105663
Griffin R (2012a) Pest risk management applications and practice (ch 14). In: Devorshak C (ed) Plant pest risk analysis: concepts and application. CABI, pp 179–198
Griffin R (2012b) Quantitative methods (Ch10). In: Devorshak C (ed) Plant pest risk analysis: concepts and application. pp. 119–134
Griffin R, Neely A (2012) Pest risk management theory and background (ch 13). In: Devorshak C (ed) Plant pest risk analysis: concepts and application. CABI, pp 167–178
Grousset F, Grégoire J-C, Jactel H et al (2020) The risk of bark and ambrosia beetles associated with imported non-coniferous wood and potential horizontal phytosanitary measures. Forests 11:342–317. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11030342
Guimapi RA, Mohamed SA, Ekesi S et al (2020) Optimizing spatial positioning of traps in the context of integrated pest management. Ecol Complex 41:100808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2019.100808
Hammons DL, Kurtural SK, Potter DA (2010) Phenological resistance of grapes to the green June beetle, an obligate fruit-eating scarab. Ann Appl Biol 156:271–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2009.00385.x
Hattingh V, Moore S, Kirkman W et al (2020) An improved systems approach as a phytosanitary measure for Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in export citrus fruit from South Africa. J Econ Entomol 113:700–711. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toz336
Heather NW, Hallman GJ (2008) Pest management and phytosanitary trade barriers. In: Heather NW, Hallman GJ (eds) Pest management and phytosanitary trade barriers. CABI, Oxfordshire, pp 1–257
Holt J, Leach AW, Johnson S et al (2018) Bayesian networks to compare pest control interventions on commodities along agricultural production Chains. Risk Anal 38:297–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12852
IAEA (2011) FAO/IAEA Guidelines for Implementing systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies - working material. FAO/IAEA Division of nuclear techniques in food and agriculture, Vienna, Austria, 7–11 June 2010
IPPC Secretariat (2016a) Design and operation of post-entry quarantine stations for plants. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 34. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 16
IPPC Secretariat (2016b) Methodologies for sampling of consignments. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 31. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 24
IPPC Secretariat (2016c) Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 22. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 12
IPPC Secretariat (2016d) Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites. International Standard for phytosanitary measures No. 10. Published by FAO on behalf of the Secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 10
IPPC Secretariat (2017a) Glossary of phytosanitary terms. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 5. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 38
IPPC Secretariat (2017b) International movement of growing media in association with plants for planting. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 40. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 16
IPPC Secretariat (2017c) International movement of wood. International Standard for phytosanitary measures No. 39. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 20
IPPC Secretariat (2017d) Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 11. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 40
IPPC Secretariat (2017e) Recognition of pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 29. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 16
IPPC Secretariat (2017f) Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 4. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 9
IPPC Secretariat (2017g) The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. International standard for phytosanitary measures No.14. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 12
IPPC Secretariat (2018a) Determination of host status of fruit to fruit flies (Tephritidae). International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 37. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 18
IPPC Secretariat (2018b) Establishment of pest free areas for fruit flies (Tephritidae). International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 26. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 60
IPPC Secretariat (2018c) Requirements for the use of temperature treatments as phytosanitary measures. International Standard for phytosanitary measures No. 42. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 14
IPPC Secretariat (2018d) Systems approach for pest risk management of fruit flies (Tephritidae). International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 35. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 26
IPPC Secretariat (2019a) Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae). International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 30 (REVOKED). Published by FAO on behalf of the Secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome
IPPC Secretariat (2019b) Guidelines for inspection. International Standard for phytosanitary measures No. 23. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 12
IPPC Secretariat (2019c) Guidelines for the use of irradiation as a phytosanitary measure. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 18. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 20
IPPC Secretariat (2019d) Integrated measures for plants for planting. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 36. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 22
IPPC Secretariat (2019e) International movement of used vehicles, machinery and equipment. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 41. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 14
IPPC Secretariat (2019f) Pest free potato (Solanum spp.) micropropagative material and minitubers for international trade. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 33. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 24
IPPC Secretariat (2019g) Requirements for the use of fumigation as a phytosanitary measure. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 43. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 18
IPPC Secretariat (2020) Sea container supply chains and cleanliness: an IPPC best practice guide on measures to minimize pest contamination. FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention, Rome, Italy, pp. 1–16
IPPC Secretariat (2021a) Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 13. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 12
IPPC Secretariat (2021b) International movement of seeds. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 38. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 22
IPPC Secretariat (2021c) PT 39: Irradiation treatment for the genus Anastrepha. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 28. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 6
IPPC Secretariat (2021d) Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade. International standard for phytosanitary measures No. 15. Published by FAO on behalf of the secretariat of the international plant protection convention (IPPC), Rome, pp. 21
Jamieson LE, DeSilva HN, Worner SP et al (2013) A review of methods for assessing and managing market access and biosecurity risks using systems approaches. New Z plant Prot 66:1–9. https://doi.org/10.30843/nzpp.2013.66.5511
Jamieson LE, Woodberry O, Mascaro S et al (2021) An integrated biosecurity risk assessment model (IBRAM) for evaluating the risk of import pathways for the establishment of invasive species. Risk Anal. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13861
Jang EB (2016) Systems approaches for managing the phytosanitary risk of trading in commodities that are hosts of fruit flies. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 737–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43226-7_32
Jang EB, Enkerlin W, Miller C et al (2014) Trapping related to phytosanitary status and trade. In: Shelly T, Epsky N, Jang E, Reyes-Flores J, Vargas R et al (eds) Trapping and the detection, control, and regulation of tephritid fruit flies. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9193-9_17
Lance DR (2014) Integrating tephritid trapping into phytosanitary programs. In: Shelly T, Epsky N, Jang E, Reyes-Flores J, Vargas R (eds) Trapping and the detection, control, and regulation of tephritid fruit flies. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 559–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9193-9_16
Leal I (2010) Phytosanitary risks associated with the global movement of forest products: a commodity-based approach. Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, B.C
Leung B, Roura-Pascual N, Bacher S et al (2012) TEASIng apart alien species risk assessments: a framework for best practices. Ecol Lett 15:1475–1493. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12003
Liebhold A, Work T, McCullough D et al (2006) Airline Baggage as a pathway for alien insect species invading the United States. Am Entomol 52:48–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/52.1.48
Liebhold AM, Yamanaka T, Roques A et al (2016) Global compositional variation among native and non-native regional insect assemblages emphasizes the importance of pathways. Biol Invasions 18:893–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1079-4
Lloyd AC, Hamacek EL, Kopittke RA et al (2010) Area-wide management of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the central burnett district of Queensland, Australia. Crop Prot 29:462–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2009.11.003
MacLeod A, Baker RHA (2003) The EPPO pest risk assessment scheme: assigning descriptions to scores for the questions on entry and establishment. OEPP/EPPO Bull 33:313–320. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2338.2003.00635.x
Mangan RL, Frampton ER, Thomas DB et al (1997) Application of the maximum pest limit concept to quarantine security standards for the Mexican fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). J Econ Entomol 90:1433–1440. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/90.6.1433
Marchioro M, Faccoli M (2021) Improved light traps for early detection of insect pests of Phytosanitary concern in Shipping Containers. J Econ Entomol 114:2060–2068. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toab150
Maxwell A, Vettraino AM, Eschen R et al (2014) International Plant Trade and Biosecurity. In: Dixon G, Aldous D (eds) Horticulture: plants for people and places, vol 3. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 1171–1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8560-0_9
Meibusch P, Williams R, Miayer J (2019) Review of grain devitalisation methods. B.FLT.1011 (final report). Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney, pp 1–71
Merkel K, Schwarzmueller F, Hulthen AD et al (2019) Temperature effects on “overwintering” phenology of a polyphagous, tropical fruit fly (Tephritidae) at the subtropical/temperate interface. J Appl Entomol 143:754–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12645
Meurisse N, Rassati D, Hurley BP et al (2019) Common pathways by which non-native forest insects move internationally and domestically. J Pest Sci 92:13–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12645
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2018) Import Health Standard: Air Containers from all Countries. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–11
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2020) Import Health Standard: Sea Containers from all Countries. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–13
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2021a) Import Health Standard for Cut Flowers and Foliage. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–14
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2021b) Import Health Standard: Actinidia plants for planting. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–21
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2021c) Import Health Standard: Citrus plants for planting. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–31
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2021d) Import Health Standard: fertilisers and growing media of Plant Origin. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–16
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2021e) Import Health Standard: grain and seeds for consumption, feed or Processing. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–74
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2021f) Import Health Standard: importation of Nursery Stock. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–362
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2021g) Import Health Standard: processed animal feed of Plant Origin. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–36
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2021h) Import Health Standard: Prunus plants for planting. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–30
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2021i) Import Health Standard: seeds for sowing. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–163
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2021j) Import Health Standard: Vehicles, Machinery and Parts. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, pp 1–34
Moirangthem TT, Baik O-D (2021) Disinfestation of stored grains using non-chemical technologies – A review. Trends Food Sci Technol 107:299–308
Neven LG, Kumar S, Yee WL et al (2018) Current and future potential risk of establishment of Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Washington State. Environ Entomol 47:448–456. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvx203
North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) (2009) RSPM 35. Guidelines for the Movement of Stone and Pome Fruit Trees and Grapevines into a NAPPO Member Country. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 51
North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) (2011) RSPM 3. Movement of Potatoes into a NAPPO Member Country. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 51
North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) (2012) RSPM 37. Integrated measures for the trade of Christmas trees. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 9
North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) (2013) RSPM 24. Integrated Pest Risk Management Measures for the Importation of Plants for Planting into NAPPO Member Countries. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 24
North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) (2017) RSPM 33. Guidelines for Regulating the Movement of Vessels from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 12
North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) (2018) RSPM 41. Use of Systems Approaches to Manage Pest Risks Associated with the Movement of Forest Products. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 54
Ormsby MD (2021) Establishing criteria for the management of tephritid fruit fly outbreaks. CABI Agric Bioscience 2:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-021-00043-w
Ormsby MD (2022) Elucidating the efficacy of phytosanitary measures for invasive alien species moving in wood packaging material. Journal of plant diseases and protection (2006) 129:339–348 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-022-00571-1
Papadopoulos NT, Katsoyannos BI, Kouloussis NA et al (2001) Early Detection and Population Monitoring of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in a mixed-fruit Orchard in Northern Greece. J Econ Entomol 94:971–978. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-94.4.971
Peterson RKD, Higley LG, Pedigo LP (2018) Whatever happened to IPM? American entomologist. (Lanham Md) 64:146–150. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/tmy049
Quinlan MM, Mengersen K, Mumford J et al (2016) Beyond compliance: a production Chain Framework for Plant Health Risk Management in Trade. Chartridge Books Oxford
Saccaggi DL, Karsten M, Robertson MP et al (2016) Methods and approaches for the management of arthropod border incursions. Biol Invasions 18:1057–1075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1085-6
Sauphanor B, Severac G, Maugin S et al (2012) Exclusion netting may alter reproduction of the codling moth (Cydia pomonella) and prevent associated fruit damage to apple orchards. Entomol Exp Appl 145:134–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2012.01320.x
Sheppard AW, van Klinken RD, Heard TA (2005) Scientific advances in the analysis of direct risks of weed biological control agents to nontarget plants. Biol Control 35:215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.05.010
Tonina L, Giomi F, Sancassani M et al (2020) Texture features explain the susceptibility of grapevine cultivars to Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) infestation in ripening and drying grapes. Sci Rep 10:10245–10245. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66567-9
Turner RM, Brockerhoff EG, Bertelsmeier C et al (2021) Worldwide border interceptions provide a window into human-mediated global insect movement. Ecol Appl 31:e02412. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2412
Turner RM, Plank MJ, Brockerhoff EG et al (2020) Considering unseen arrivals in predictions of establishment risk based on border biosecurity interceptions. Ecol Appl 30:e02194. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2194
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2019) International Classification of Non-tariff Measures (2019 version). United Nations, New York, pp. 1–97
USDA (2002) Preventing the introduction of plant pathogens into the United States: the role and application of the “systems approach”. National Plant Board for the United States Department of Agriculture, United States
Vail PV, Tebbets JS, Mackey BE et al (1993) Quarantine treatments: a biological approach to decision-making for selected hosts of codling moth (Lepidoptera: tortricidae). J Econ Entomol 86:70–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/86.1.70
van Klinken RD, Fiedler K, Kingham L et al (2021) The importance of distinguishing between demonstrating the efficacy and implementation of phytosanitary systems approaches. Crop Prot 139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105287
van Klinken RD, Fiedler K, Kingham L et al (2020) A risk framework for using systems approaches to manage horticultural biosecurity risks for market access. Crop Prot 129:104994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2019.104994
Vreysen MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J (2007) Area-wide control of insect pests: from research to field implementation. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands
WHO (2021) WHO aircraft disinsection methods and procedures. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp 1–66
World Trade Organization (1994) The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). Geneva
Xia Y, He J, Liu H et al (2021) The effectiveness of field pest management and culling at harvest for risk mitigation of two fruit flies affecting citrus in China. Fla Entomol 103:438–443. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.103.00404
Xia Y, Huang J-h, Jiang F et al (2019) The effectiveness of Fruit Bagging and Culling for Risk Mitigation of Fruit flies affecting Citrus in China: a preliminary Report. Fla Entomol 102:79–84. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.102.0112
Yamamura K, Katsumata H (1999) Estimation of the probability of insect pest introduction through imported commodities. Researches on Population Ecology 41:275–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101440050032
Yoe CE, Griffin R, Bloem S (2020) Handbook of phytosanitary risk management: theory and practice. CAB International, Boston
Acknowledgements
The project, developing a national systems approach for meeting biosecurity requirements to access key Asian markets, was funded by the Hort Frontiers Asian Markets Fund, and is part of the Hort Frontiers strategic partnership initiative developed by Hort Innovation, with co-investment from CSIRO, Western Australian Department of Primary Industries Resources and Development, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Agriculture Victoria, and contributions from the Australian Government. We thank Jane Muller and Jens Froese and staff from the Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment for critical input into an earlier draft. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on this manuscript.
Funding
The project, developing a national systems approach for meeting biosecurity requirements to access key Asian markets, was funded by the Hort Frontiers Asian Markets Fund, and is part of the Hort Frontiers strategic partnership initiative developed by Hort Innovation, with co-investment from CSIRO, Western Australian Department of Primary Industries Resources and Development, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Agriculture Victoria, and contributions from the Australian Government (Grand No. AM17001).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Rieks D. van Klinken conceptualised the study and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Rieks D. van Klinken and Kerry Collins. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Rieks D. van Klinken, Matthew P. Hill and Lloyd Kingham. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article, nor any relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
van Klinken, R.D., Kingham, L., Hill, M.P. et al. A menu of measures to manage trade-related plant pest risks, and a review of methods for demonstrating measure efficacy. Biol Invasions 25, 1227–1248 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02977-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02977-2